With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
The headline figure revealed in the "skinny budget" was 28.4 percent cuts to the State Department, USAID and international programs. As CGD’s director of US Development Policy Initiative Scott Morris wrote recently, and as he tells me in this edition of the CGD Podcast, when other areas of spending directly relevant to development are considered, the actual level of cuts “goes north of 30 percent.”
What do the cuts mean for the people most affected and for America’s role as a global development leader? That’s the subject of this edition of the CGD Podcast.
Director of the US Development Policy Initiative, Co-Director of Sustainable Development Finance, and Senior Fellow
Major global health programs, such as PEPFAR (on HIV/AIDS) and US contributions to the vaccination alliance GAVI, appear to be safe. Yet CGD senior fellow Amanda Glassman worries about other areas, including family planning, which she wrote about after the administration issued an executive order cutting funding for foreign family planning services, and the US role in ensuring global health security.
"The budget did have a callout for an emergency response fund in case of outbreaks, but I understand that to be just for domestic use," she tells me. "Really we have to think about fighting disease over there so it doesn’t come here. This is a global undertaking."
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.
The Trump administration delivered its FY 2019 budget request to Capitol Hill this week. Containing deep cuts to the international affairs budget, it looks a lot like a repeat of the FY 2018 request. And with a 30 percent reduction in topline spending, few programs were spared. Meanwhile, buried among the rubble are smart reform ideas that run the risk of being overshadowed—or even undermined—by the depth of the proposed spending reductions.